Box Turtle Bulletin

“Yes on Prop 8” Signs On A Slow Boat From China

The economy is sinking and people are losing their jobs across the country. What better time than now for proponents for California’s Prop 8 to outsource their one million “Yes on Prop 8” yard signs to China?

Those “Yes On Prop 8” signs were intended to miraculously appear on lawns all across California at 7:00 am on September 22 to give the appearance of a sudden “blossoming of support” (their words, oft repeated) for the initiative, according to plans devised by LDS backers of California’s “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. But a serious glitch in that plan means that those signs weren’t ready for last Monday’s launch.

Julia Rosen Calitics blog contacted Gena Downey, producer of the cult Mormon film “God’s Army,” who works on the “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. Downey responded with an email confirming that those million signs are “still in route from China” and aren’t expected for another couple of weeks. Rosen concludes:

So, the Yes campaign, rather than purchasing some good old fashioned union made in America lawn signs, they went to some cut rate producer in China who blew the delivery date by at least three weeks. What, they couldn’t afford traditional American signs?

That seems to have worked out well. Why does the Yes on 8 campaign hate America?

Outsourcing jobs to China seems like a very strange way to “protect families” in America.

[Hat tip: Nick Literski]

Certified Cameronite: Kathleen Gilbert, OneNewsNow and LifeSite

As we reported today, Kathleen Gilbert has reached into the depths of “agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook” by a Nazi apologist to fuel her anti-gay propaganda on the web sites LifeSite News and OneNewsNow.

And so today we have triple-header: three Certified Cameronite Awards go to Gilbert, LifeSite and OneNewsNow. And to add to that, we have a full denunciation from a UK researcher whose study she misrepresented. That’s a home run! Congratulations.

Researcher: LifeSite and OneNewsNow Misrepresent Our Review

A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”

Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow. It began:

A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

The LifeSite/OneNewsNow article claims that the study proves lesbians, gays and bisexuals experience this risk not because of stigma or discrimination, but because homosexuality itself is a mental disorder:

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including “major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.”

The BMC Psychiatry article by professor Michael King and colleagues is available online for free. This means that you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything; you can read it yourself. And as you do, you’ll notice that the study bears little resemblance to Gilbert’s description of it.

First, the authors make it clear that participating in a “homosexual lifestyle” — and by that I presume Gilbert means sexual activity — is not a necessary risk factor. The studies that the authors analyzed defined homosexuality and bisexuality by many different standards, including sexual attractions and identity apart from behavior.

The authors also make it clear that while lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual people of mental disorders and suicidal behavior:

LGB people are subject to institutionalised prejudice, social stress, social exclusion (even within families) and anti-homosexual hatred and violence and often internalise a sense of shame about their sexuality.

And:

Although our evidence does not specify the nature of such mechanisms, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is itself a disorder that is thereby subject to a higher co-morbidity than is found in heterosexuals.

In fact, even if Gilbert hadn’t seen the study itself — even though it is available online — her “report” doesn’t even bear much resemblance to the Health24.com article that she claims to cite but doesn’t link.

We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:

LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review.  Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.

Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”.  Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.

We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people.  Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility.  However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.

There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle.  We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.

To throw more confusion into the mix, Gilbert tossed in a discredited 2007 study by Nazi-apologist Paul Cameron which supposedly demonstrated that “that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.” She also used Cameron’s study to claim that discrimination hat nothing to do with it, saying that, “Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark – the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality – both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death.”

We have already examined glaring flaws in Cameron’s study, as has Danish epidemiologist Morton Frisch who described his study as “humorous example of agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.” Cameron’s false claims of presenting this “study” before the Eastern Psychological Association earned him an official condenmnation from EPA president Phile Hineline in April 2007.

Gilbert’s brief article in LifeSite and OneNewsNow combines the worst misrepresentations of legitimate science coupled with the worst example of phony pseudoscience — all in six short paragraphs. That’s quite a remarkable if dubious achievement. What Gilbert lacks in veracity, she certainly makes up for in ingenuity — and audacity. Maybe someday she’ll decide the truth ought to play a role as well. Somehow I doubt it.

[Thanks to regular reader Stefano A. for his help in gathering material for this post.]

No on 8 Ad Hits the Airwaves

The campaign against Proposition 8, the California anti-gay marriage amendment, has been collecting funds and promising an advertising effort. Now they have begun to deliver.

Historically, advertising around gay issues has been complexing, leaving average gay concerned about whether the No on 8 campaign would skirt the issue or reach the right audience. I wondered if same-sex marriage would be mentioned, if gay people would be the focus, and if the program selection would be based on audience or whether the ads would only run on Bravo and Logo or at 3:00 am.

So I was a little surprised last night while watching the season opening episode of Dancing With the Stars when an ad came on with a lovely older couple asking us to treat all of their children the same. But it did answer some questions.

It appears that the No on 8 advertising will be structured to reach the broadest markets. Karen Ocamb reports

Here’s where it is scheduled to air: Dancing with the Stars Premier, Heroes Premier, Grey’s Anatomy Premier, The Presidential Debate, Survivor, Ugly Betty Premier, The Office Premier, Colbert Report and The Daily Show, The Today Show and Good Morning America, Ellen, Oprah, The Tonight Show and David Letterman, Saturday Night Live…and more, per the press release.

Nor will the campaign shy away from using either the words “gay” or “marriage”.

If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don’t eliminate that right – for anyone’s family.

However, at least in this first ad, the focus will be on presenting those with whom the straight viewer can empathize.

So far I’m impressed. Let’s hope that the advertising is effective.

Of course, the supporters of Proposition 8 have trotted out their talking points, some of which are so obviously nutty that you wonder if it they lose votes everytime they say them.

Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws.

Only the koolaid drinkers believe that.

Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot.

And this argument has the ill advised effect of reminding undecided voters that the ones who are opposed to marriage equality are going to be perceived as bigots (and that many of them are bigots). That’s not what I’d consider an effective tool at recruiting support.

Welcome Out, Clay Aiken

Via Perez Hilton:

People magazine promises to have more tomorrow.

I have two thoughts on this:

1) I know some might be inclined to bash Aiken for waiting so long. But everyone has to go through their own stuff before they can do it, and that takes longer for some people than it does for others. Because it took me nearly 40 years to get over my stuff, I see no reason to say anything but “Welcome out!”

2) Poor Kathy Griffin. What will she have to joke about now?

Steven Spielberg Gives $100,000 to Fight Prop 8

Another Hollywood heterosexual has joined Brad Pitt in helping our community fight against the attack on our equal treatment under the law. The LA Times is reporting that Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw have announced that they will contribute $100 K to the No on 8 campaign.

Folsom Street Fair Organizers Make Questionable Claim Against Americans For Truth

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth and I may disagree on pretty much everything related to sexuality but something we both share is the fact we’re activists who rely on “fair-use” to expose and analyze things in the world we find objectionable.

In a recent analysis of Folsom, LaBarbera posted a digital copy of a congratulatory letter from Mayor Newsom to Folsom organizers as a one page excerpt from Folsom’s 2008 Program Guide which he found particularly offensive and illustrated the focus of his analysis.

Folsom organizers took issue with this apparently as their attorney sent LaBarbera a cease and desist letter claiming intellectual property infringement. LaBarbera, aided by the American Family Association’s General Counsel fired back calling their bluff, citing the “fair-use” clause of copyright law.

In this case I agree with Pete. Folsom’s lawyers are full of shit.

Specifically, the letter from Mayor Newsom is not Folsom’s property, it was written by someone at the Mayor’s office and is a matter of public record in the public domain. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act misrepresenting ownership of intellectual property puts the person making the false-claim at risk. Per Wikipedia:

anyone who makes a false claim of infringement or false counter-notification is liable for the damages suffered by the other parties

It appears the only thing Folsom organizers have succeeded in is giving the appearance of legitimizing Mr. LaBarbera’s attacks on them by allowing him to paint himself as the victim.

I contacted Folsom organizers to see if their side of the story differed from Pete’s — our email exchange is below:

I’m a pro-gay activist and write for a website called BoxTurtleBulletin.com which tracks and monitors the religious right. Recently it came to my attention that the anti-gay group Americans For Truth is claiming your lawyers sent them a cease and desist letter relating to their use of Folsom St. Fair promotional materials. The full article is online here:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/so-much-for-leather-pride-folsom-
organizers-try-to-stop-aftah-from-exposing-their-vile-event.html

Based solely on Peter LaBarbera’s account it appears he is well within the realm of fair-use and your lawyer’s claims have no ground are designed only to intimidate him.

Before blogging on this I would appreciate your side of the story.

Thanks,
Daniel Gonzales

Folsom’s response:

Daniel,

Thanks for your email. While AFTAH claims fair use, that doesn’t mean it is fair use. There are specific legal criteria by which fair use is gauged. And, there are actually pretty severe limits placed on the amount of a work that can be reproduced under the fair use rule. We state clearly in our Guide: “Reproduction in whole or in part without permission…is prohibited.” That said, we apparently disagree on the issue which is why we are pursuing it. There is no intimidation involved here.

Demetri Moshoyannis
Executive Director

New Website Featuring Histories of Treatments for Homosexuality

A group of researchers at University College London (UCL) have recently established a website about use of treatments to try to make homosexual people heterosexual.

The work led by Michael King arose from research funded by the Wellcome Trust from 2001 to 2004 into the oral history of such treatments in Britain since 1950.  During this research a number of oral histories were collected from LGB people who had undergone treatment and the professionals who had developed and provided the treatments.

The group now wants to expand the work on the website by asking for contributions from people around the world who may have undergone a treatment to attempt to become straight.  This might have been hormone or other medical treatment, psychotherapy, aversion behavior therapy, and various forms of reparative therapy.

Their stories can be posted on this website.  Friends or relatives of someone who has received or is receiving treatment may also want to give their stories.  The group is also eager to hear from professionals, be they doctors, psychotherapists, counselors or psychologists who may have undertaken these treatments at any time in their career.

You can send your account in written, audio or video format.  If it is suitable it will be added to the stories already on this website.

See also from BTB’s “Today In History” series:
“Aversion Therapy for Sexual Deviation”
A Simple Technique To Cure Homosexuality

LA’s Black Cat Bar To Be Designated A Historic Cultural Monument

Our essay last January 1 about a riot that was sparked when police saw men kissing at the stroke of midnight on New Years Day has had an impact. I’ve just received word from Wes Joe that the Black Cat bar, the scene of the 1966/67 riot which birthed a renaissance of the gay rights movement in Los Angeles, has passed an important hurdle in becoming a City Historic Cultural Monument:

Hi, happy to report that on Thursday the LA Cultural Heritage Commission approved designation of the Black Cat as a City Historic Cultural Monument.  An important hurdle since they’re picky — the other 2 applications up that morning were denied.

Next step is a City Council Committee, then the full Council.  Hopefully not a big deal since we have the strong support of the City Council President.

Thanks again for The Temerity of a Kiss, which really helped motivate us to do this.

An aside, noticed the button in today’s piece on Frank Kameny.  In doing the research at the ONE archives I came across a cover of Tangents magazine covered with buttons.  Couldn’t resist putting that in the application material.  On Thursday one of the persons giving testimony, Alexei Romanoff, had owned the bar down the street from the Black Cat that was also raided New Year’s morning 1967.  Showed him the page and he remarked that he had over 700 such buttons.

Thanks again!  Wes

Thank you Wes for helping to preserve an important cultural landmark.

Proposition 8: Words Matter

In previous postings, I’ve explained how studies have shown that some survey respondents are more reluctant to forbid or ban something than to simply “not allow” it.

Applied to California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that aims to amend the state constitution to bar same-sex couples from marrying, this research suggests that at least some voters might be influenced by how the ballot measure is worded. They may be less likely to support a proposition framed as banning marriage equality, and more likely to support one that is framed as simply defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Now the latest Field Poll shows that the wording does have an impact, mainly on the 30% of likely California voters who aren’t already knowledgeable about Proposition 8.

When the ballot measure was framed as eliminating marriage rights for same-sex couples (as it will be in the official ballot summary), a whopping 58% of this group opposed it. By contrast, only a plurality (42%) opposed the measure when it was described as a “limit on marriage” — the wording favored by Proposition 8 backers.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I discuss the Field Poll findings in greater detail and consider their implications for the final seven weeks of the Proposition 8 campaign. Although the latest survey results are more good news for marriage equality supporters, they shouldn’t be cause for complacency. The amendment can still pass if its supporters turn out their voters in disproportionate numbers.

The Avocate: Arizona’s Marriage Battle “Feeling Ignored”

I missed this article from the Sept 23 issue of The Advocate:

Now that hope is being put to the test in California, Florida, and once again, Arizona, which all face ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage this election cycle. But while donations are pouring in to defeat the initiatives in the first two states, money is only trickling into Arizona’s gay rights groups. … If donations and attention are the currency of this campaign, marriage equality advocates could be up a creek.

“We’re hearing from individuals who have the money to fight these things that they’re giving to California and Florida because they feel like they can win there — and are skeptical about our chances here,” says Robert Tindall, a Phoenix human resources consultant and board member for the state’s American Civil Liberties Union. Adds Rebecca Wininger, a member of the Phoenix chapter of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, “To say that one fight is more important than another dismisses the other fights.”

Donations and attention are most certainly the currency of this campaign. Arizona turned back a so-called “marriage amendment” in 2006, becoming the first state in the nation to do so at a time when everyone thought it was impossible.

But just because we did this in 2006 doesn’t mean that it will automatically happen again in 2008. This is a different election with a different electorate, and our opposition is already airing television commercials.

We can defeat Prop 102 again, but we cannot do this without your help. Help us preserve your 2006 victory and tell them that when you say no, you really mean no. This is important because this has implications for other states in the years to come — including California, should Prop 8 go down in defeat there. Please give as generously as you can.

Frank Kameny’s Papers Available To The Public

It’s been about two years since Frank Kameny, longtime Washington, D.C. LGBT activist, donated his papers to the Library of Congress. Now that those papers have been cataloged, they are available to the public:

Charles Francis, organizer of the Kameny Papers Project, said the 50,000 items were “organized to perfection” by library staff and would be an invaluable resource to people reviewing the earliest days of the gay civil rights movement.

“The Kameny Papers, documenting the evolution of the gay rights movement in the United States, are now available to study for many years to come,” he said.

Frank played a pivotal role in the gay rights movement since the 1960’s. He became involved when he was fired from his civilian job with the U.S. Army’s map service in 1957. Federal civil service rules at the time prohibited gays from federal employment, and security clearances were routinely denied to anyone who was found to be gay. He became the first to appeal a firing on the basis of homosexuality.

He lost those appeals, but went on to found the Washington, D.C. Mattachine Society. He also played a key role in getting the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

In 1968 Frank coined the phrase “Gay is Good,” inspired by the popular “Black is Beautiful” slogan. “Gay is Good” may appear rather simple today, but it was a particularly significant slogan for 1968 when homosexuality was still considered both a mental illness and a criminal act. Last year when some of Frank’s memorabilia was featured in a temporary display at the Smithsonian, he shared with me what the slogan meant to him:

I’ve said, for a long time, that if I’m remembered for only one thing, I would like it to be for having coined “Gay is Good.” But never did I expect that that would make its way to the Smithsonian. I feel deeply contented.

According to the Washington Blade, highlights of the Kameny Papers include papers related to the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision and the landmark 1974 federal decision to grant an openly gay man a Pentagon security clearance.

And by the way, in case you were wondering, Frank Kameny is still very much alive.

“Provoking Smile” Defense Rejected in Murder Case

We’ve had some strange defense excuses in LGBT murder hate crime cases, excuses which often amount to blaming the victim. But the most outrageous example has to be this one: a defendant in a Denver-area murder case who complained that “she smiled at me.”

Yesterday, Weld County (Colorado) District Judge Marcelo Kopcow ruled against a motion to lower the charge in the case of murdered transwoman Angie Zapata from first degree murder to second degree murder. Her killers lawyers contended that the defendant, Allen Andrade, was provoked into killing her when she smiled at him:

Only when Andrade grabbed at Zapata’s crotch did he discover the truth. But when she smiled at him and said, “I’m all woman,” it drove an enraged Andrade to commit murder, attorney Annette Kundelius said.

“At best, this is a case about passion,” Kundelius said. “When (Zapata) smiled at him, this was a highly provoking act, and it would cause someone to have an aggressive reaction.”

Judge Kopcow ruled against the request, citing evidence that Andrade killed Angie deliberately, hitting her several times with a fire extinguisher. He also expressed anger against gays while in custody, and repeatedly referred to Angie as “it.” Judge Kopcow also declined to drop the hate crime charge in connection with the felony.

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial: No on Proposition 8

The San Diego Union-Tribune mirrors the shift in thinking that Californians have had since Proposition 22:

In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.

They join the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury News.

(hat tip to reader Stefano)

National HIV/AIDS and Aging Awareness Day

It’s today. I had no idea.  But it’s a great thing. After all, even though infection rates have remained relatively level, people over 50 now make up the fastest-growing segment of those living with HIV. This is mostly attributable to the fact that people with AIDS and HIV are living longer. What was once a death sentence is now a very serious chronic illness. And as people age — part of the aging process is already about losing immunity — managing HIV/AIDS while simultaneously managing the ordinary effects of aging is a delicate balancing act.

Newsweek as a great series of articles online:

• A Lot of Unknowns: Medical advances are helping many HIV patients live into old age. But that blessing presents its own unique set of tribulations.
• ‘Invisible And Overlooked’: A growing population of lesbian and gay senior citizens seeks recognition for their unique needs and challenges.
• Facts About the Aging Lesbian and Gay Community

You can learn more about issues of aging and the LGBT community at SAGE.